Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

vitaly.friedman writes "Microsoft has published the due date for Windows XP SP3 (Service Pack 3) on its Windows Lifecycle Web site. The preliminary due date (the latter half of 2007) for the next collection of fixes and patches for Microsoft's desktop operating system is as more than a year later than many company watchers were expecting."

Microsoft always did say that SP will not have new features. Then SP2 sort of changed that only for that instance. Just about all updates on most SP can be downloaded individually and installed. So MS is not really taking anything away from you.

A SP release to them just adds more QA and testing, that i think they want to avoid and release vista. I keep seeing people posting how they think MS is doing this so they can sell Vista. I do not think that is the reason, as most people buy windows through OEM with new computers, and a late SP is not going to change that. Corporations are not going to just switch to vista in a few months because of SP3 being late either, because by the time they test and release SP3, SP1 for vista would be out....

The only people that might upgrade are well Windows fans/devs/sys admins, and well they will upgrade irregardless of SP3 timeline

Well leaving aside the XPSP2 you mentioned, what about NT4SP4 (ie, integration of browser with OS)? If this is really Microsoft's statement regarding SP's, then they've went against their word more than once.

I can see that a software company wants to concentrate on getting a product that is going to make them money (Vista) out the door on time, and that nothing for a service pack that is critical is going to be held back.

My question: If this enrages people - why not switch over to Linux where the SOTA is always available in a no-cost distribution?

Are you running it in DirectX or OpenGL mode? It's goldlisted [winehq.org], so maybe you should file a bug report about it. Because if everyone starts buying it but it doesn't work properly, they'll be sorely disappointed with WINE.

Correct, Vista is planned for the end of 2006. From there, Microsoft has already planned Vista SP1 for mid-2007, followed by XP SP3 in late 2007. Basically there's 4-8 months between releases, so developers have a span of time to dedicate themselves to each project.

By the beard of Odin, planned Service Packs sounds more like planned bug fixes.They've already blown their Vista deadline (at least once) so Why TF don't they keep it in testing for another 4 months instead of releasing buggy software?

Or why not a final Beta release to let the fanboys go at it and find the bugs?

Maybe with their 'new' patching system, patches won't need to be measured in MBs, in which case, Service Packs won't be hundreds of megs. I could live with that, but jumping on Vista worse than being

Service Pack 3 is generally after the next version is out historicly unless I am mistaken and usually the final service pack.

I think the original poster was joking that Vista is not much more than a small upgrade from XP. That seems true; but XP wasn't much of an upgrade from 2000, and '98 wasn't much of an upgrade from '95 either.

I'm keeping up to date with the patches - why wait a year? Service Packs don't add anything I can't live without. It won't make the stuff I've got work better, and it won't contain anything you'll have to have for future software to work. Also, it won't be available to anyone with a dialup modem (unless they've got a provider that doesn't cut them off every 2 hours like the ones I've used do).

Exactly what I was thinking. They'll bring out Vista and then they'll make a package with all the patches which came out since SP2 + some features that are new in Vista (not the shiny stuff, just things needed for compatibility). This doesn't surprise me at all, but on the other hand there's not really a need for a sp meanwhile, because the patches just do the same job (and they can be bootstraped just like a sp). I never understood some of my co-workers installing beta versions of SP2 before it came out (a

This story reminds me of a co-worker I used to have, who used to spout off completely worthless information. One day he decided to inform everyone that the history of the letter W was not in the dictionary, much to his dismay. Nobody was ever quite sure why he cared, let alone why he felt it necessary to verbalize his observations. I suspect he submitted this story as well.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. MS wants Vista to be out before any major patch to XP. Its in their best interest as it compels more people to upgrade to Vista. XP will be treated like a red-headed step child so Vista will look more appealing. So long as they issue security patches I'll be happy. It's what I've come to expect.

So their release "date" is 2H 2007? Since when is a 6-month window considered a "date"?

It's extremely common in the software industry to target a half or quarter rather than giving a firm calendar date. I wouldn't fault Microsoft for this since everyone else does it as well. The main problem Microsoft has is this window constantly slips farther and farther back.

This just in: Microsoft Windows XP SP3 is now renamed Microsoft Windows Vista, and will ship sometime in early 2009. Possible new features include an updated icon, a completely new marketing campaign, one driver for an HP scanner written in a drunken coding blitz at 3am, and a new desktop wallpaper prominently featuring the Microsoft Logo.

First of all it might be a good idea to display the blue screens again by default. Should be possible to sell it as a new feature . Afterall you never think of turning this behavior off *before* you have a non booting system and the current solution is like playing a.wav saying "It's not Steve, the hardware did it" in an infinite loop.

Possible new features include an updated icon, a completely new marketing campaign, one driver for an HP scanner written in a drunken coding blitz at 3am, and a new desktop wallpaper prominently featuring the Microsoft Logo.

Has anyone else noticed Microsofts gradual decrease in providing updates?
For example, NT 4 had 6 service packs and number 7 was not released. But supposedly was pretty much complete, number 7 added a bunch of features that were supposedly in Windows 2000.. and with the release of Windows 2000 just around the corner.. why would they want to make 2000 less appealing?

Also, notice that 2000 has just 4 service packs..

And it's looking more like XP will be getting just 3 by the end of life period, now... either Microsoft have absolutely amazing QA which means they're fixing all the bugs in their OS's by the last service pack or they want to force people onto their newest OS with the promises of bug fixes etc.

This is disheartening, they're trying to force people into a perpetual upgrade cycle and are being very successful at it too. I guess we can only hope that stuff like Linux and OpenOffice start making some inroads to at least reduce the price of Windows to help reduce the pressure on people who are locked into MS solutions.

Service packs are [typically] nothing more than an update rollup. Like a fruit rollup, only not as tasty, and much larger. It's no different from installing a bunch of updates at once. XPSP2 is the exception.

OS X incremental updates are smaller in scope than service packs, usually minor bugfixes and speedups released every few months. Security Updates are occasional. Contrast to Microsoft which actually has a "Patch Tuesday" and releases dozens of non-stop patches all year long.

Corporate America told Microsoft that they didn't like service packs because they required a lot of IT effort to roll out across the organization. As it stands, any true security patch needs to be installed ASAP, so anything in a service pack is probably something most IT departments would prefer to avoid unless it scratches their itch.

Microsoft has been listening to big companies; they created "patch Tuesday" as a way to reduce the pain for corporate IT departments. Think about it, why wouldn't MS release the patch ASAP for consumers? In fact, that would be better for MS debugging because it would be easier for MS to tell if a particular patch caused problems. As it is, they're all clumped together each month.

If nobody in particular is clamoring for an update, Microsoft will oblige them by not issuing one.

To be fair to Windows (ha!), I have found that the useful life of a Linux installation is a lot shorter than Windows. I would never consider installing a Linux distribution from 2000, but Win2k isn't all that bad (as Windows goes) even 6 years later.

Of course, distributions such as Debian make up for this in being very easy (and cheap!) to upgrade to the latest version, but still. I've run into situations where I really want to upgrade a Debian system but fear breaking something. Eventually I just bite the bullet and do it. Things usually work out pretty well, but if it were Windows, I would be able to upgrade individual programs without worrying about support from the underlying OS because most programs work on all Windows platforms going back to NT 4.0.

Just something to keep in mind next time you lament the Windows upgrade cycle...

NT3.51 had 5 service packs. NT4 had 6.5. w2k had 4. XP might only have 2.

Next one after that? Won't have any service packs at all!

I'd still be using my NT4 if it weren't for the lack of USB. It was supposed to come in SP7... but didn't because 2k was released. 2k had USB support and people moved en-masse. Can't remember what XP promissed over 2k, though. Better games? Icons for children? Can't have been improved stability, right?

Win2k wasn't marketed to home users; they mostly stuck with Win98 or tried WinME. Those of us who had Win2k saw WinXP as a candy coated Win2k, but for non business users it was a great jump in stability. (As time goes on I find more I like about WinXP over Win2k, but none of the differences are earth shaking.)

In my job, I have to fix dorm residents' personal computers for pretty much any software problem. You name it: viruses, worms, spyware, basic help, installing virus protection, and convincing people to install service pack 2.Getting people to install SP2 was and still is a pain in the ass. They don't trust it becuase their mother's cousin's son-in-law, who saw something on TV about it, says that it can cause problems.

But just as we'll probably be just about finished getting the students to upgrade, here com

...But in reality, I'd say late 2006. Odds are that right after Vista is released, some show-stopper of a bug will be found, and suprise suprise, it will also have an Impact on XP. Something like that could hasten the release of the third service pack for XP. Either that, or some significant technolog change, that requires a large update to be pushed out promptly.

By the time WinXP SP3 rolls out, Microsoft should be able burn the file to HD-DVD. (Which I presume will be needed since the SP3 installer will probably be huge if you patching a virgin install of the original WinXP disc.) The only problem is do you need SP3 installed first before you can access SP3 on a HD-DVD? Hmmm...

I can find service pack 3 just fine.. It's at this site called autopatcher [autopatcher.com]. Also there's this tool to make slipstreamed and unintended installs, here [nliteos.com]. Also, windowsupates works just fine in firefox [62nds.com].

Smells like just another crappy marketing exercise to me.... good thing my next computer is going to run Mac OS / Linux (currently dual-boot Windows 2000 / Linux on my current one for games, and yes I am a transgaming subscriber;)).

I don't really see the relevance in explicit service packs anymore. They already put all the fixes and most if not all of the additional programs on Microsoft Update... I'm surprised they haven't stopped releasing service packs altogether.
So what are service packs for? People with no Internet connection?

As the Windows fans says "it only makes sense for Microsoft from a business perspective to give more reasons to purchase Vista, since it'll then be out earlier". And it does. But not from a security perspective, which happens to be what matters to the XP users.

It took our computer center a month to evaluate SP1. For SP2 it took them almost three months to figure out what might possibly go wrong if they deploy on all local Windows XP PCs. They face complains from hundreds of users if things go south. SP3 is going to be a nightmare for them. But, all those Windows bugs also keep them employed.

Instead of having Windows * with SP*, why can't they just use a normal version number scheming? It's not that complicated.... If Mac people can handle it, so can Windows people. How about a good ol..? Seems logical to me. It makes a lot more sense then Windows XP with Service Pack 2 and KB3490gk, 4494055,....n-1 updates installed.....

Uhhh... Solaris does this hi2u. BSD's do as well, although most don't bundle it they roll out the patches individually. OSX doesn't release service packs, they just tick off the revision number and charge you 200$ for it. Get real...
Basically you're saying you're upset that MS rolls up their patches for you instead of making you go out and grab each one yourself, or flat out charge you for those *fixes*? THE HORROR.

OSX doesn't release service packs, they just tick off the revision number and charge you 200$ for it.

Not quite...

1) Apple only charges $130 for the newest version of MacOS X.

2) A MacOS X 10.x -> 10.x+1 release isn't the same as a Windows Service Pack. It's the same as, say, Windows NT 5.0 (win2k) -> 5.1 (winxp), which, incidentally, Microsoft charged $200 for. The MacOS X equvalent to a Service Pack would be a 10.4.x -> 10.4.x+1 release, of which there are about 8-10 in the product's life cycle. Ea

About the time a dentist wrote a disk operating system, had it stolen from him from poeple who didn't know how to do it themselves, who then had to buy his company to stop legal action due to stealing the software.

It's never been about getting it right - that's expensive - it's been about getting it usable and cheap so they can sell a lot more copies than those that spend extra effort getting it right.

nobody is saying that there ain't gonna be any support. ms wont release sp3 for xp becuz it can cloud vista's arrival. pure marketing. they actually threw sp3 a year away from vista's release.
is it because there's no need for an sp3 for 1.7 years?
or is because sp3 coming out near vista release would cloud the roll out for the new product?
u decide.
it's all about marketing and "perception management".

The people that are going to be getting Vista are only people that are getting new hardware. Otherwise, there is no need to upgrade, dispite this service pack, there is just no need. MS knows this, so they will keep adding updates, and maybe do stuff that just keeps people on Windows and not moving to something else when they do trade in their old hardware.
I also though that Vista was suppose to ship after this service pack? Or did they change this.

they sell on the idea of 'newness' and 'newness' would fade out with updating existing xp to an sp3.

Service packs aren't SUPPOSED to introduce new functionality, they're meant to roll up bug fixes so you don't have to install 50 patches after installing your software product. MS should be releasing a service pack every quarter or at most every half IMHO.

"We find we need to re-load Windows XP often because of its vulnerabilities and instability."

I am not sure to whom your "we" refers. I know I am not in that set as the last time I had to reinstall Windows XP because of its vulnerabilities and instability was...well, never. Reboot, why yes I have had to do that countless times when a patch was pushed out. Hopefully that kind of architecture will be out the door with Vista. Until then I can live with reboots due to certain patches. This box has been running the XP SP2 install since, well, I installed SP2. I use it heavily every day to develop code, test, install and reinstall applications, and do my daily software development work. It could be that my company has a competent IT department, but I am sure a lot of it has to do with me not running as Administrator and not installing suspicious software or browsing suspicious websites when I am. My point being that with proper care and feeding an XP system does not need to be reinstalled often.

Do you notice that Microsoft gives its old OS a new name, and people say, "Maybe this time Microsoft will treat me right and release a good product." Microsoft has found a weakness in the average person, the way virus writers find weaknesses in Microsoft software, in my opinion.

Software companies with virtual monopolies don't want to release a good product because then no one will upgrade to a new version, even if it has a new name.

On OSX, it is safe to have administrator privileges: to do anything that could mess with the system, I still have to type my password.

On Windows, however, an administrator is pretty much a root user - total power, nothing to prevent a major fuckup. Many apps do not run if you are a limited user. And there's no intermediate between too limited and too powerful.

Unfortunately i cant just run linux. I need apps that are currently windows only.Also at this point in my life... Its about doing the work, and having less time to tinker with the new. If linux had the apps i needed (it has some, but not all) I would be all for tinkering in linux again.

I ran redhat for a while on one of my pcs. I found it anoying, overly frustrating... yet worth the effort. It was for the most part enjoyable but when you hit a wall, you really hit a wall. I cant afford to do that when it co